Attorney General Calls on Local Jurisdictions to End Sanctuary Cities... CSPAN March 27, 2017 1:34pm-2:45pm EDT
i just want to -- i know we have a vote coming and that you are br about to wrap up. i do have additional questions i will submit for the record, as well as the record on dairy insurance. >> all members should understand they can submit letters for the record. i do want to mention the fact that the committee's received a number of letters in support of your nomination, including one from nearly 700 -- 700 organizations across the agriculture and food value chain, as well as one from six former u.s. secretaries of agriculture representing both republican and democrat presidents. governor perdue, thank you for your willingness to be considered for service to agriculture and rural america as secretary of agriculture. this committee has a history of working in a bipartisan fashion as this hearing has
demonstrated. as opposed to others that have been going on in the senate. while crafting legislation and considering nominations. and we will move as quickly as possible -- we are going to leave this but you can find it online at c-span.org. take you live to the white house for the white house daily briefing with sean spicer. >> first i'd like to have the attorney general come up to the podium to make an announcement regarding immigration enforcement with respect to sanctuary cities. when the attorney general is done speaking we'll have time for a couple questions. then i'll continue with the briefing. if your question is not germane to sanctuary cities, keep your hand down and we'll get to it after we go through the events of the day. with that, attorney general sessions, come on up. >> thank you, sean. department of justice has agreed
to enforce our nation laws, including our immigration laws. those laws require us to promptly reme
have aove aliens convicted or accused certain crimes. the vast majority of people support this commonsense requirement. according to a recent poll, 80% of americans believes that cities who arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws. this includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. for example, the department of homeland security recently issued a report showing that in a single week there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor i.c.e. detainer requests with
respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. these -- the charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child, and even murder. such policies cannot continue. they make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets. we all remember the tragic case of kate steinham, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in san francisco as she walked along the pier with her father. shooter was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. just 11 weeks before the shooting san francisco released him from their custody even
though immigration officers filed a detainer asking that he be held in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up for removal. even worse, sanchez admitted the only reason he came to san francisco was because it was a sanctuary city. a similar story unfolded just last week when everett velez, an immigrant, was charged with murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station. velez was released from a denver jail in late december despite the fact that i.c.e. lodged a detainer for his removal. american people are not happy with these results. they know that when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe. failure to report aliens convicted of criminal offenses put whole communities at risk, especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to
protect the perpetrators. . duis, assaults, burglaries, drug crimes, gang rapes, crimes against children and murderers. countless americans would be alive today and countless loved ones would
not be grieving today if these policies of sanctuary cities were ended. not only do these policies endanger lives of every american, just last may the department of justice inspector general found that these policies also violate federal law. the president has rightly said disregard for law must end. in his executive order he stated that it is the policy of the executive branch to ensure that states and cities comply with all federal laws, including all immigration laws. today i am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply
with these federal laws including 8 usc section 1373. moreover, the department of justice will require jurisdictions seeking or applying for department of justice grants certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards. this policy is entirely consistent with the department of justice's office of just program's guidance issued just last summer under the previous administration. this guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with section 1373 in order to be eligible for ojp grants. it also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants.
department of justice will also take all lawful steps to draw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates 1373. in the current fiscal year, department of justice' office of justice programs and community oriented policing services anticipate awarding more than $4.1 billion in grants. i strongly urge our nation's states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies. such policies make their cities and states less safe. public safety, as well as national security, are at stake, and put them at risk of losing federal dollars. the american people want and deserve a lawful system of immigration that keeps us safe and one that serves the national
interest. this expectation is reasonable, just and our government has the duty to meet it, and we will meet it. thank you. >> montgomery county right up the road, there was a rape in maryland at roscoe high school. has anyone from the department of justice had any conversation with anyone in montgomery county orosco as they describe themselves as sanctuary county and city and there's also a boat load of federal government in montgomery county. >> you know, maryland is talking about a state law to make the state a sanctuary state. the governor is opposed to that. i'm glad to hear. that would be such a mistake. i would plead with the people of maryland to understand that this makes the state of maryland more at risk for violence and crime, that it is not good policy. and as a former prosecutor for many years in state and federal
law jurisdictions, i just know the historic relationship different federal agencies have with regard to honoring detainers. it is just a fundamental principle of law enforcement that if you have a person arrested and another jurisdiction has a charge, then they file a detainer, and when you finish with the prisoner, you turn them over to the next jurisdiction for their adjudication. that is what should be done here. >> let me ask the question. mr. attorney general. listen to me carefully. sounds like you are applying the standards and the policies of the obama administration put forward on compliance with underlying justice department rules. are you taking any additional steps? have you asked the president to maybe talk about other federal funds that are not necessarily under your control as a way to punish sanctuary cities or states? >> well, that's a good question.
what i'm saying today is that essentially the policies of the obama administration that were issued last july made clear that you should not be receiving certain federal funds if you're not in compliance with 1373. we believe that grants in the future could be issued that have additional requirements, and every grant that's being issued in america today usually has a requirement that you if you qualify for this grant, you have to meet certain requirements. so we'll be looking at that in the future and we'll continue to pursue it. but fundamentally, we intend to use all the lawful authority we have to make sure that our state and local officials who are so important to law enforcement are in sync with the federal government. >> -- bigger cities have said t
funding, they'll continue to be sanctuary cities. what would you say to those cities who say we don't care? >> that's very disheartening. but i hope that the american people and their constituents in their own cities will communicate with them and as we continue a dialogue and a discussion, and as we continue to ensure that moneys that go for law enforcement only go to cities who are participating in an effective collegial cooperative way with the federal government, that that would also send a message. we is simply got to end this policy. thank you, all. >> okay. you guys ready? before i get into the day's schedule i wanted to read -- i know there's been some interesting -- the state department's statement regarding the arrest of hundreds of protesters, peaceful protesters,
that occurred in russia. the state that the state department put out says, "the united states strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of people protesters throughout russia on sunday. the detention of people protesters, pum rights observers and journalists is an affront to essential democratic values. we are troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition -- of the opposition leader upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raid on the anticorruption organization. the united states will monitor the situation. we call on the government of russia to immediately release all peaceful protesters. the russian people, like people everywhere, deserve a government that's an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under the law and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of retribution. now with respect to events for the day, this morning after receiving his daily intelligence briefing the president participated in a roundtable with women and small business owners. the president is hosting a group of women's business owners as
part of the white house's full calendar of women's history month events. at the roundtable this morning, vice president pence, administrator mcmahon heard from small business leaders about their firsthand experiences, successes and challenges. as the president said, "empower and promoting women in business is an absolute priority in the trump administration." the women in attendance this morning have incredible stories, including many who have started businesses from scratch with very limited resources and through hard work and determination turned their dreams into reality. between them they provide hundreds of jobs to americans across the country. the president is dedicatesed to continuing to remove the unique barriers that women face in our economy, including access to
capital, marketsed a n ed and n. there administration will advocate for working women. in honor of women's history month the white house has been hosting events throughout march. just to name a few, the centers for medicaid and medicare systems administrator held a roundtable with women and health care which the president attended. the first lady held a women's empowerment lunch on international women's day. earlier this month second lady karen pence joined women from all five military branches for lunch at ft. meade. last week hosted military women at the vice president's residence to thank them for their service. under president trump, the american economy is a place for everyone regardless of their gender to thrive. following the roundtable the president had lunch with the vice president and secretary of state tillerson. at 3:00 the president will sign house joint resolutions 37, 44, 57 and 58 all of which use
powers of the congressional review act to roll back job killing rules. before this administration only one time in the nation's history had a president ever signed a bill that used the congressional review act to cancel a federal regulation and in just his first 66 days as president, he will have signed six resolutions to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome rules. house joint resolution 37 rules bach the so-called blacklisting rule which manufacturers identify during their meeting with the president as one of the most significant threats to the growing american -- to growing american businesses and to hiring more american workers. the rule simply made it too easy for trial lawyers to go after american companies and american workers who contract with the federal government. the president saw that workers, taxpayers and businesses were the ones who truly suffered under this rule and he's glad to be signing legislation to eliminate it. house joint resolution 45, 57 and 58 cancel federal power
grabs that took decision making away from the states and local governments who know the unique challenges of their own populations. the president firmly believes that washington's not always the solution to these problems and problems that these bills return to power to the people by putting more decisions making in the hands of state. the planning 2.0 would essentialize federal and land management in washington dilu diluting concerns of local citizens who have the right that's protected by law to be involved in this decision making process. >> removing additional layers of bro bureaucracy will make it easy for parents and state leaders to address the needs of their students. the president will work with the
federal government until any federal regulations that stand in the way of success for american business or people taken off the box. books. >> the president spoke with chancellor merkel to congratulate them of their success in the election. the president also will announce the establishment of the american innovation. it will apply the president's ahead schedule and mentality of a wide government. the office will have a focus on technology and data and hearing back from leaders in the industry as some of its first priorities. the office will focus on mode modernizing technology of every federal department identifying transformati transformational infrastructure process so we can better serve our nation's heroes.
>> tomorrow the president will sign an executive order to strengthen the nation's security by reducing unnecessarily regulatory obstacles that we stress the responsible use of domestic energy sources. this order will help electricity affordable and reliable in order to boost economic growth and job creation. before i came out today, senate democrats continue their destruction of the nomination of neil gorsuch. over the weekend, chuck schumer deme defended his decision to mount a filibuste filibuster. if schumer gets his way, this will be the first filibuster against the supreme court nominee in american history. >> the senate has "required a 60 vote threshold of every supreme
court nominee." that's not true. as i have said before, only three supported justices have faced a filibuster in the last half century. >> schumer confirmed under president obama and president bush. >> it was president obama who was a senator voted to filibuster justice -- the supreme court nominee is rare and to do so in this context is a qualifying job. that's why senator pat lahee is not incline of the filibuster. the fact that the former chairman judiciary won't standby the minority leaders, underminds
decades of senate tradition. through four days of extensive hearing george gorsuch demonstrated his credentials and a brilliant mind. he deserves a fair vote. >> with that, i will be happy to take questions. jonathan. >> starting friday afternoon through late yesterday, he received a number of calls as well as other members of the senior staffs that they have been working on healthcare for members of both sides saying they would like to work together and offer up ideas and had suggestions about how to come to resolution on this and get to a house vote on this. >> would this require -- >> jonathan is asking the question. >> would it require a series
course of questions for the white house? >> this requires a serious course of change for us. >> how we do everything and i mentioned to some of you in the course of things, i think some one of the trades of success in the organization is to examine how you do things. if they can come to resolution on the way forward, we'll listen to move forwards. there are a lot of folks that came forward with these ideas. i don't think it is a one way stree street of some of the comments that's been made. some of the democrats who were not involved early on in the
process, they wanted nothing to do with the process and there is no way they would engage in any discussion repeal, i think it is a two-way street. we are willing to listen to folks and ideas of the president's advice that we can come up with resolution on a way to move forward. >> we are at the beginning of the process. we have not seen the end of the healthcare. >> the obama administration from beginning to end, it took about 17 months and went through a series of bits and starts and it was not until scott brown was elected denied them the 60th vote in the senate that they jammed something through. a lot of the reasons that the seco secretary of health and services had some of the power they do because they had to jam it through. there were several failures during the process and they tried to go through a single pay process and they got rebuffed on
that of some of their own members ch we a members. we are not saying it is the end of healthcare, we are looking for a way forward. a lot of the members, both side of the isle, reached out willing to share ideas and both that'll make the bill stronger. the goal is to get to 216 and potentially 218 depending on where we are with special elections. we'll look to see where we can get those 218 votes. there are other opportunities to work with other people across the isle to get us through 218. that's the name of the game and we'll continue to pursue that gem. [ inaudible question ] >> after failure of healthcare on an issue where it was broad gop consensus. what makes the president thinks he can pass it this year? >> it is been 30 years.
we have a series and an economy that's evolved in technology that made a lot of things change. our tax code is out dated and on the business side, we are uncompetitive. there is a reason that companies are leaving america to go to other places. companies moving from state to state. our corporate and regulatory system have become unattractive for a lot of companies that want to return jobs here. the president recognized that business leaders around the country is not a partisan issue. you go out in silicon valley in particular, there is a lot of these companies out there that admittedly work with the president during the election or continue not to be and i think recognized that we are not as competitive as we can be when you consider the tax and regulatory climate of other countries around the world. we need to be morkeith activie .
you look at the individual side of the house especially when you are talking to middle income americans in the context of health premiums going skyrocket premium up, they recognized that they need some relief. we got to do what we can to address that. >> thank you. >> since historically, since healthcare -- going all the way back to harry truman and when hillary clinton came to washington, she wernt to the hil and thought she can get it done. i am sure there are many lessons that you can learn from previous presidents and previous first lady. have you thought of reaching out to hillary clinton to see how she maneuvers and some of the hit falls she's come to. >> i think you know. it is not been -- he's reached out to several people throughout the process to engage in both of
their ideas. the president leaknow that we learned a lot on several fronts and as well as the members that we thought we could have with us and we are examining that on a variety of bases. >> martha. >> we got some guidance from the white house about chairman nunes meeting on the white house grounds and involving his steps. any idea how the question o f the meeting should be referred to the committee chairman. i want to ask you slightly a different question which is does the white house know how what ever happens, do you have issue of the idea of someone on the executive branch sharing information that you did not know about it. did you believe it was a leak or someone on the white house staff or even provided the information
and therefore, it is not a leak. >> so obviously, all of what i know has been available to public comments. i know that chairman nunes confirmed he was not at white house grounds on tuesday and frankly any questions regarding to who he met with refers to him. i have seen some of the kmecomms he made about who he met with and i refer you to his comments that he's made. i am not going to get to who he met with or why he met with them. that's something he made very clear and i will let him answer. he's the one who has discussed what he's reviewing and so i will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. >> i am asking slightly a different question, at least i am trying to ask a slightly different question. does the white house knows what happened now beyond public accounts and that you did not have an appropriate leak in the
executive branch. >> we are not concerned about that. everything that i know what he's done is through public reports that he's made on the record to different folks when he said he had multiple sources and met with different folks to gather things as part of his review of the situation. all i know and what i am willing to communicate is what had been made available on the record comments that he's made. >> you have to be clear. >> i don't know the members of congress need to be clear. >> would the white house want to know? >> again, i think there is a difference. he's doing a review and it is not something that we are going to get in the middle of or in the way of. part of it is to let him review and looking at things that are relevant. >> clarification on your answer, you said i don't know the members of congress had to get clear in. who in the white house signed him into essentially get in? >> i don't know - i am not sure
that's now worked. i will follow up to it. >> i understand that you are not going to speak about the issue surrounding nunes, does the white house believe that he can lead an independent committee to investigate this. >> first of all, i would question what "this" is. there are two issues at hahnds. every single person has been briefed by james comey and the fbi that says there is nothing there. what he's looking into are two things that we are aware of. one is the leaks of classified information that came out and two is whether or not there is been people that are unmasked or surveillanced. i don't know why we standby the original request that was made.
i think director comey in open testimony talked about what the fbi gotten into. i think we have a lot of people looking into this situation. >> will the white house pursue a leak investigation and whoever that's given chairman nunes the information at the executive branch? >> the review of this situation proceed, we'll address that after he decides to be clear of that. >> this leak is okay and other leaks are not. >> if there is a leak and someone pursuing of a review of the situation, there is a difference between a leak someone leaking out to reporters to take classified information and share it with people who are not clear. chairman nunes is cleared. he's the chairman of the intelligence committee, someone who's cleared to share classified information with somebody else that's clear is not a leak. >> of what you read out of the state department on the protest,
does that reflect the white house's views? >> it reflects the views of the united states of government. >> i want to clarify that. you mentioned that there are lessons learned of what went discount la down of in terms of healthcare. can you talk about what the president talked about. what is the lessons? >> i am not going to detail and this is an interim thing thnal we discuss. we look at everything and who we met with them and how everything is rolled out and what organizations were met with and what commitment and when. there is a lot that goes into this. you look at whether or not it is applicable to the situation or unique. you look at some of the individuals that you met with in
terms of timing and substance and evaluate the process itself. some agreed that the individual or whether or not that's someone that, you know, several folks, again, it depends on the aspect of it and there is a policy team and aspect of this. we'll talk about what went well and what did not. we do that not just the bad but the good. jonathan asked at the beginning. most organizations whether or not you do something really well or not as well, it is usually incumbent on you of what did you do well or things that we did really well, we sustain those kinds of aspects of something. there is always something to improve. parts of things that you did well that you don't want to throw the baby out of the bath water. there is an ongoing piece to this major. >> chairman nunes, i have question about jared kushner in a second. yes, members of congress may not need to be cleared in.
i believe there are intelligence places in capitol hill that's secured and this meeting could taken place. it creates the impression that chairman nunes came here with some degree of cooperation of the white house was able to carry out this meeting and made the announcement he did which is per recei perceived by some and was trying to be helpful of this administration and it appears there were some degree of cooperation that the white house granted chairman nunes making it not just an investigative action but a cooperative one. >> right, we asked both of these entities of the house and the senate to under take this review. it is partially at our requests that they are looking into this. number two, based on the public comments that he made to organizations, he has said from my understanding on the record that he's not -- he did not meet with white house staff.
again, you are trying to make something that he haims from what i read not actually been the case. >> i asked of cooperation to be escaped. >> i will be glad to look at that to see if that's an accurate statement or not. >> okay, let me ask you about jared kushner. there is an understanding that's trying to be worked out of jared and the committee. is that testimony, is that something that the committee requested or volunteer or something did he have something and what he did of the transition that he met with and some of the meetings he took that raised questions of russia or outside of diplomatic channels but have other aspects to their russian business deals that was made? >> right, throughout the campaign, jared served as the official primary point of
contact of former officials. given this role, he volunteered to speak with the committee but did not receive a time or a meeting. >> is this a private meeting? >> i don't know. >> based on the questions that's surrounding this, he volunteered to sit down and hey, i am glad to talk about the role that i play and the individuals that i met with. given the role that he played in campaign and the transition, he met with count less individuals and that was part of his job and his role. he executed it completely as of he's supposed to. >> you do not believe he owes the american public an apology? >> for what, doing his job? >> everyday that someone is in a position like jared volunteered
to talk to the committee and dealing with foreign power in the election. >> i am answering it. i am just saying that based on the media frenzy that existed around this. he volunteered to made sure, we made some contact, i will be happy to explain it and let me know if you want to talk. plain and simple. >> just to be clear and follow up on what everyone is asking about chairman nunes. does the white house have knowledge of the information that chairman nunes received when we came to the white house the first time. if that's the case or if it is not the case, is your position that the white house is not going to look into where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation is complete? >> i think -- i am not aware of where he got it from. i know in his public statements, he talked about multiple sources. i don't know how he derive to
that conclusion. at this point, the goal is to wait until the review that he's under taking it is completed. >> caitlin. >> why did nunes need to bring the president out on document review? >> that's a big assumption that you made. he had multiple sources on multiple topics. we don't know what he's prebrie on of that totality. >> we are reviewing that now, alexis. >> just to follow up. two questions. last week, you were advising a press core that it did not make sense to nunes to come to the white house and brief the president on something that he had obtained from the white house, from the administration. >> my question to you is i know what you just said, can you say factually that it is not
possible that chairman nunes came to brief the president on something that he obtained from the white house of administration. >> i cannot say 100% of what i know. what i can tell you through his public comments is that he's said he had multiple sources and we came to a conclusion and agreeing on any of those sources of what he came to a decision on, i don't know. that's something that frank lyon if he starts with the president. ? >> it is possible. >> anything is possible. >> here is my question on taxes. >> yeah. >> the president said in the past, he thought that maybe tax reform will slow over in 2018. we know from the reform in 1996, that took more than two years. does the president anticipate that'll take that long going to 2018 and beyond.
who's going to write the tax legislation or dedivides the plans that the president wants to hut his name on. >> the first one, i know. it depends. these are big things. there is a lot of groups that are going to want a ton of input because of the nature that it is been 30 years. part of this is dependant on the degree coming to consensus on a lot of big issue. we have a goal and it will depend on a lot of these issues both on the corporate side and on the individual side. how that process evolve. to predict it, i know the secretary would like to have it done. he will play a huge role on it and our legislative affairs team will play a role on it. there is a lot of folks on the team and secretary ross on the commerce side. there is a lot of individuals that assembled of a world class cabinet that has a lot of interests in helping to grow the
economy to track jobs and create more favorable tax climate in the country. you know we are not there yet. >> sean. >> will it be the president's plan? >> we are driving the train on this. we are going to work with congress on this, the president as you heard through multiple times, the president is very clear, it is a huge priority for him. something that he feels passionate about and so we'll have more on that later. >> the documents of chairman nunes, described by his office, in the early days after the president sent out that tweet, the white house was digging around for anything to corroborate with the president tweeted out. why did it take the chairman to come here to the white house to view these documents to uncover
these documents. why can the white house kcover it? >> my understanding is that there are certain system that he does not have access to. that's his explanation. >> did the white house ever searched the same documents that the chairman searched? >> i don't know what he found so therefore, it is hard to say what he was briefed on and what we know. that's a hard question to answer at this point. >> is it possible that these documents were merely surveillance reports? >> i am not going to give you a hypothetical and i don't know what he found or what's possible or not. >> let me finish if i could, is it possible of surveillance reports from security -- >> i don't know. >> i don't know what he's got on his system and what the intel community has on theirs so i don't know what he would have had access to it.
>> thanks. on tax cuts, looks like you got a little bit of of house freedom caucus. >> that's adding to the deficit. what's the right number for the white house to add to the deficit in order to do tax cuts. >> how high are you willing to go? >> it is an early question to ask on this side. it is an equation that's interested in that and what's going to attract jobs and what's going to help us build or grow the economy. i think we are growing around 2.6 and the president really would like to see that growth right up in the high 3's and 4's and 5's, there is a question of what part of tax reform in the corporate side will help us spur the economy and grill jobs. i think that's an ongoing discussion. that's more of a driver of this. i think as it involves, we'll
score and no more. >> are you comfortable entirely adding to the deficit in? >> you are asking early in the process to make that kind of analysis before we have a policy set for us or any kind of notion of what the scroll will look like. i' >> thanks, sean. >> i am trying to understand between the chain of the president isis' strategy review. has he signed off of all the changes. is that something that's left for commander in the field? >> it depends on which -- you know, which mission you are talking about specifically. >> the marines. and showing much more recently than that. did he have to sign off on that? >> he speaks with general
mathemattis regularly and i am not going to give you details. the president has made it clear that he wants to give commanders o the ground much more flexibility to execute their mission especially when it comes to isis and depends on the magnitude of the mission and number of ground troops in particular and so this is an ongoing discussion that he has with secretary mattis. >> are you waiting for this or as conclusions coming in, you are adapting day-to-day. >> i think some of it is an ongoing discussion that he's having with harem. and they'll update them on certain things and givering them an update of where they are headed right now.
>> there are certain events that are part of the review in terms of where we are going. we'll update on that and talk to him at the tweets. [ inaudible question ] is that something that he want to see attacked onto the next funding bill? >> well, i think he's made very clear of his position on planned parenthood. obviously, this was an opportunity to defund it. but, i don't want to get ahead of our legislative strategies. this was one of a way to make it happen. >> there is a school of thought in this town last week proverd that the president is lacking. i have two questions. what's in it with democrats to
work with the president now and two, if fully signature sue to get they thinks in the house. would that tend to under mine the job security of speaker ryan. >> so two things. number one, the message, as i mentioned to jonathan at the beginning it is a two way streets. >> you heard of gorsuch throwing down decades of senate's traditions by saying we'll filibuster this guy. >> i mean there is nothing that anyone has seen or lay a glove on him the last four days that suggest he's not qualified to serve. with obamacare, repealing and replacing it, several of these leading democrats come up from the get-go. there is a point of which both
parties can look back and figure out where it is engaging. the president as i mentioned is eager to get to 218 on a lot of his initiatives whether it is tax reform infrastructure. there are a lot of things that he's going to be willing to listen to other voices on the other side to figure out if people want to work him and making washington work and enhancing the lives of the american people, he's going to work with them. >> he had a great meeting at the cdc where he talked about infrastructure and loans and small business lending and education. there are things that he's willing to engage individuals with groups and caucuses to get to 218. it is not about under mining anybody. it is about moving forward and getting things done. >> what is it for speaker paul
ryan? >> getting things done. there is still a sense of doing what's best for this country that exists. his goals, he came here to get things done. i think he was pointed out there was a level of disappointment that he expressed on friday. he wants to get things done. this event on friday draws more people in the process to say okay, lets figure out if we can come together with consensus idea to get to 218 and whether or not if they come from one side of the isle or the other to pass this bill to make a better system. he understands and a lot of democrats do that there is an opportunity here with healthcare being a big issue obamacare being such a looming disaster that we have an opportunity to do some stuff. if democrats want to join in, that's great. >> you talked quite a bit up there about the wide latitude of dismantling obamacare.
is that still the case, will he continue try to dismantle obamacare while you are trying to work with modern and democrats on healthcare reform. the healthcare bill would have repealed on all of those obamacare taxes, you want to see those repealed as part of the tax reform, though? >> secretary price is up here today. there are a lot of meetings that's taken place internally in the team. there are a lot of options on the table especially coming to what we call phase one and phase two. as we look back on talking about lessons learned, how we do that whether we wait for the revival of legislation before we put it up. just so we are clear and i mentioned earlier, obamacare had a ton of fits and starts during the process. it was left dead multiple times but they press forward.
i don't think -- i do think we have to recognize, we are 17 or 18 days into the process. i think the president has made it clear that it is not over. there are people coming to the table. he's going to listen to all good ideas across the spectrum to figure out what it takes to get to a team. we'll see where we go from there. >> the tax questions, following up on that the healthcare bill, repealing those obamacare. >> how we look at both the taxes and some of the phase one stuff. we are not ready to announce anything now. >> john decker. >> as far as jared kushner offered to meet with the chairman and talking to the senate intelligence committee, is there any particular reason that the white house would not be opposed to the idea of jared kushner testifying under oath before that committee? >> again, we volunteer to meet with the committee and they have not confirmed of a meeting yet.
so get ahead of what is being asked for would be silly. >> in the white house, it is viewed of -- ordinarily, we see the white house envocabularying executive bridprivilege, why ha you done this in this case? >> jared, to leaders that's until we had a state department of functioning in place for people to go. remember we had a delay in some of these things. that was his role. and yes, he wants to make sure he's clear of the role he played and that he talked to. is obamacare repeal dead? >> i don't think it is dead? >> it will be dead if you have democrats working with you? >> i don't know if it is true. >> you are still trying to repeal it. >> part of it is a recognition that it is failing. it is dying on its own.
it will be dead soon. >> well, a lot of democrats need to give their money. >> i understand what they want. i think there is a difference. i think that we recognize premiums continue to go sky high and detuductibles are going sky high. by pelosi's metric, this is dying. she's the one that's crafting the metrics. it is abysmal failure. if they want to recognize how we can do in any more responsible way to achieve the goals that obamacare set out to do but do so in a way that is going to do the opposite and increasing choice and drive down cost. we are willing to have that discussion. >> one of the things i mention is we have to figure out how to get to 216 or 21 depending on
the number of a given day. we need responsible democrats, i want to sit down and have a discussion of how to do that. there maybe enough of them that's willing to do that. i understand that with the democratic leadership is and that's one thing. they continue to stake out a far left position. that's not all the members are. >> i think based on the calls of the last 50 or 60 hours, i think there maybe some room to have a conversation with people and how to move forward. lets see how that evolves. i don't know if we are ready to jump on this today. if you all want to get together and start coming into a way of a resolution, we are willing to listen. right now, we have gotten androgen a an agenda continuing to pursue. >> i am not going to jump ahead. we believe that there is something that could be done at some point. the further along we go,
presumes continpr premiums continue to go up. there will be continued cries from people and of the ability to see people of a doctor of their choice or plan -- >> real quick follow up of nunes, do you rejekt of an any -- by the way, there is this information that's helpful. >> the chairman made it clear through his public comments of his goals. you cannot ask someone to do a reveal of the situation and sort of create inferences because they are reviewing a situation because there is something not right about that. >> he's reviewing a situation and i think he's been fairly opened with the press as far as what he's doing and why. from our stand point, that's
what we asked to do. >> april. >> sean, several topics. >> shocker. >> don't be. >> you heard the question of the attorney jean of the hate crime that's happening in new york. the white supremise. what is this white house saying of this hate crime? >> you talked about issues. >> i am glad to talk about the issue but i want to be clear that i am not going to reference any specific case before the doj right now. the president has recognized that we need to bring this country together and bring people together. he had a long conversation in respect to race itself which i
think some what -- i want to be clear. thank you. i think that was one of the topics he talked about with the cvc of some issues respect to crimes and education and solutions that they suggested that could be done during the meeting. those are the kinds of things that we can continue those conversations. >> you have t unfortunately, there is a rise of hate crimes to include anti-semantic funds. this gentleman giving a statement who talked about he wishes the man who's younger who's a thug that he killed. what would you say to this? >> number one, hate crime and anti-semantic crimes should be called out in the most r.
there is one issue despite policies should reunite and that's calling on hate and vdevi sifness. the president had been cleared with that and he called it out before at the opening of his joint address. that's what he let with is a call to denounce hate no matter where we come from politically. test also talked about the night that he took the staej on that wednesday morning around 1:40 about one of the things he wanted to do as president is to unite all americans. >> i want to be clear on and while we -- in your case, i don know all the details and i don't want to reference any specific case. we saw this the other day of some of the anti-semantic
behaviors that's going on. there was an immediate jump to criticize folks on the right and ask them to condemn them. it turns out it was not someone on the right. it was, the president from the get-go, who said i bet you it is not someone. it is right. >> i understand that. in those cases there are no question, black and white we need to call of all instances. while we are on the topic, i do think there is a rush to judgment and a lot of cases when it comes to some of the ant it comes to some of the ananti anti -- we saw that the president is right and none of them had to be held on account on that. that's something that's equally needs to be called out. >> there has not been nothing to
go back to those individuals and nothing on the left. everyone asked on the right to denounce something that they were not guilty what. >> my second topic and i am done. >> one who was in the room, like the cdc meeting that happened last week. >> somebody who's in the room at that meeting said that the issue of hbc came up. it is a sensitive subject right now in the black community and the white house. the issue came up and rosa says she's the one heading hbcu to the white house and the president did not make a response confirming or denying will that be the case. >> i don't remember any announcements to the make. we don't have anything to announce on that subject at that
time. >> kristen. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> does the president believe he can still work with the freedom caucasus? >> it think it depends on what legislation. >> not necessarily. >> it is not a question of we are going to work with anybody who wants to work with us on achieving the goals the president is set out. >> we'll never work with you. it is that balance. >> i don't think it is written. he learned a lot through the process about loyalty and it is not just a block. it is certain individuals and again, i am not going to get into naming names. the president learned a lot through the process. you know one o f the things it is interesting is when you look back, the president recognizes when there is not a deal to be made or walk away. >> it is not just about making
deals but knowing mary you to walk away. >> the president understood that while you can get a deal at the time that sometimes a bad deal is worse than getting a deal. >> he smartly recognizes that was on the table was not going to be keeping with a division that he had and so this was not a time and a bill is at hands. >> did he regret to from tweeting. >> he's a fan of the show. >> did he owe speaker ryan an apology there. >> what did they say? >> i think they talked both saturday and sunday at length. he's a fan of the show. he tweeted out support of it. >> i know what a lot of people say kristen. >> for what? supporting a show on fox? >> dave, dave?
>> two quiestions. >> when the president chose jared kushner reform. obviously, jared kushner had 60 something days and never had a government job. >> when you look at the individuals he's bringing in. one o f the things that that -- again, they may talked or about it later. >> jerry is looking a t the procurement and the technology aspect. if you dealt with the government and recognize how out dated and run modernize it is. >> it is not serving the american people and looking at how we procure technology a and -- when you look at the va in particular and recognize how
it handles certain things. by prescription drugs, very well. >> there are certain thing that is may not do as well in terms of how it keeps its records and how it lends its mown. we can look at and find out is there a better way. >> we recognize there are certain things that business would not do in terms of what government had to do because we serve all people. >> there are certainly practices that we can put in place that can help us put in better service to some of these sucre areas. if you look at other individuals bringing into the process, i think of it as a great service to this country. there are so many individuals that jared have talked to that have done so well and blessed by the nation that wanted to give back in some way shape and form and are using this opportunity to help our country and serve
our country in ways they believe they can use their expertise to do. >> healthcare >> yes, this review that you talked about what went right and wrong. i know you adodon't want to vladislav namestnikov vladislav namestnikov names. >> it is not a question of written them off. it is a question of there is an understanding of how you deal with certain people and how they dealt with you. it is not a question of writing them off. we'll need to get to -- as time goes on, i am going to keep on saying 218 it is easier. i think that we recognize as we go down this path of a big agenda that the president has. we are going to need every vote that we can and hopefully grow the vote in some cases to well beyond that. where he not writing off anybody. we do recognize there are some lessons learned from this process. the president made it clear on
friday. >> thank you very much, enjoy your day. c-span voices on the road. we recently visited classes and universities asking students what issues would you like congress and the administration to address in the first 100 days. >> hello, my name is maya reid, i am a student here in trump's first 100 days in office, i would love for him to understand and although we did not vote for him. we are representatives under him, imd li would like him to w and maintaining our relationships of other countries that we developed over the years. thank you. what i would like to see for trump administration is taking care of our schools, day-to-day
education and free education and service schools and everything else and i would like to see better medicare and extended obamacare as a starter. as a student and as a black man, ill like to see that. >> hello, my name is claire, i am a senior pr major. in the first 100 days of trump's presidency, i would like for him and congress to address the issues with federal funding towards women services because that affects people like myself and other middle class and lower class people. hi, my name is michael, i am a junior here at jcso, for the first 100 days, i believe that trump should improve his immigration policy. one, the muslim ban, i don't agree with that because i have a
friend who's muslim and plus not all muslims are all terrorists. as for the wall policy, i don't think it is dpoigoing to work either. i do believe illegal immigration it is an issue and all, billing a wall is not going to help. my name is meiay, i am a communication major. i know a lot of candidates and candidat presidents making a lot of promises. i would like for him to lower the rate of unemployment. >> voices on the road, on c-span. in case you missed on c-span. fran si h
francey hakes. >> i was wrong -- the hardest thing i had to do is watch their abuse. sometimes stilled photos and some times with sound and videos. all heart wrenching and even now impossible to forget. >> farmers are struggling. >> governor sonny purdue. >> farmers are not able to produce. trade is the answer. >> msnbc's chris matthews at the first amendment award center. the truth arrives at the front page or straight news broadcast, that's what contains the po politicians. that's what stopped the over reaching power and that's what the country takes seriously and that's what matters this hour, this week, this time in our lives. treasury secretary stev
steve mnuchin. the goal of tax reforms is about creating simplications in making business tax rate and worldwide income. you know we are able to take the tax code and redesign things. >> zero ian read on pharmaceutical cost. exchanges don't provide them access. i think we do need to reform of healthcare the way it is delivered and consequences will be for patients. >> epa's administrator scott pruitt. there are exciting things going on with respect to nuclear space and not here. most of that is happening here in europe because of the disincentives that we put into place. if you really cared about some